According to Eisner:
"The most important effects are located outside the classroom. In most settings students are expected to display what they have learned on tests, in portfolios, and in their commentary about what they have studied. Most of the time these students are fragmented into disciplinary forms that seldom have much to do with the world outside schools. Yet what we surely want is more than merely knowing whether students can preform well in school. To the extent to which we are interested in their ability to use what they have learned in life outside school - the context that really matters - we must look to their behavior outside school." Eisner p.49-50
"Students live and work in a context, a milieu (social environment) shaped by a wide variety of activities and events. The art room affords students an opportunity to develop their persistence, to explore their individuality, to share what they have learned with others, and to learn from to others what they themselves do not yet know. It gives them opportunities to learn to use a wide variety of tools and to learn how to care for them. The art room, like the concert hall and the dance floor, is a complex and changing nexus in which a wide variety of forms of thinking and learning are made possible." Eisner p.69
PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETING ART
The principles on interpretation instruction within the art classroom laid out in Terry Barret's article brought up some interesting thoughts that I feel apply to my concerns for leading group critiques in a school setting. I feel that providing a setting for students to share their thoughts and interpretations on each others work must be prefaced by a clear outline of what is to be expected form all students in participation. Certainly students, say at the High School level, would not grasp all of Barrett's principals right away but I feel that few of them bring up very key components to a successful open critique that would benefit students far beyond the classroom setting. (ping* Eisner ch. 3) Alowing students to interpret and argue their thoguhts with one another is an opportunity that we should grant them and examine closely. The opportunity for students to understand what it means to respect others thoughts and ideas as well as build upon their own in a group setting is of the utmost value. This is an opportunity unique to the Art room that has the potential to benefit a student across the board in their ability to communicate effectively and respectfully.
A few of the interesting principals that she brought up included: "Good interpretations of art tell more about the artwork than they tell about the interpreter." I realized while reading this that when I am involved in a critique, the things I mention often have more to do with me than the art itself. I talk about how they make me feel for what I have experienced. This really shouldn't be the focus. It may add a bit of insight but the main focus should stay on the piece of art and how it is interpreted by a broader audience than just my narrow view. However, I certainly contribute to that but I am not the focus solely.
"An interpretation of an artwork need not match the artist's intent for the artwork." Hearing what Barrett had to say about this point was very encouraging for myself as would be for a younger student. If the piece that you are creating becomes something different form what you intended, that is okay! Susan Rothenberg's quote was perfect in driving this point home. If a student creates something and it is not what they were hoping for, by no means does that kill it or make it unsuccessful.
The principles on interpretation instruction within the art classroom laid out in Terry Barret's article brought up some interesting thoughts that I feel apply to my concerns for leading group critiques in a school setting. I feel that providing a setting for students to share their thoughts and interpretations on each others work must be prefaced by a clear outline of what is to be expected form all students in participation. Certainly students, say at the High School level, would not grasp all of Barrett's principals right away but I feel that few of them bring up very key components to a successful open critique that would benefit students far beyond the classroom setting. (ping* Eisner ch. 3) Alowing students to interpret and argue their thoguhts with one another is an opportunity that we should grant them and examine closely. The opportunity for students to understand what it means to respect others thoughts and ideas as well as build upon their own in a group setting is of the utmost value. This is an opportunity unique to the Art room that has the potential to benefit a student across the board in their ability to communicate effectively and respectfully.
A few of the interesting principals that she brought up included: "Good interpretations of art tell more about the artwork than they tell about the interpreter." I realized while reading this that when I am involved in a critique, the things I mention often have more to do with me than the art itself. I talk about how they make me feel for what I have experienced. This really shouldn't be the focus. It may add a bit of insight but the main focus should stay on the piece of art and how it is interpreted by a broader audience than just my narrow view. However, I certainly contribute to that but I am not the focus solely.
"An interpretation of an artwork need not match the artist's intent for the artwork." Hearing what Barrett had to say about this point was very encouraging for myself as would be for a younger student. If the piece that you are creating becomes something different form what you intended, that is okay! Susan Rothenberg's quote was perfect in driving this point home. If a student creates something and it is not what they were hoping for, by no means does that kill it or make it unsuccessful.
No comments:
Post a Comment